From military to militarizing masculinities

Abstract

In many societies, the military institution is discursively constructed as a key ‘masculinity maker’; compulsory military service is considered a disciplinary rite de passage that turns boys into men. Hence, the relationship between masculinities, warfare and the military as a social institution is an important field of inquiry for feminist research and critical masculinity studies (Connell, 1995). As such, it has provoked theoretical discussions about the reproduction of patriarchal gender relations and hegemonic masculinity as well as rich empirical work on the construction of military masculinities and the performances and experiences of being a soldier (Barrett, 1996; Do & Samuels, 2021). At the same time, critical scholarship within feminism, gender studies and military studies has widened the analysis of militarism and war to encompass cultural and institutional processes of militarization beyond the military as an institution, for instance in relation to violent masculinities, popular culture, social protest and changes (Woodward & Duncanson, 2017; see also NORMA Volume 10, Number 3–4, 2015) The American feminist theorist Cynthia Enloe (2000) has argued that the male soldier, represented as the hero and the warrior, is one of the most fundamental representations of masculinity, and R.W. Connell (1995) has argued that the military is the most important arena for defining hegemonic masculinity in a European and American context. This basic assumption about gender connotations, presenting men as aggressive and violent protectors and women as peaceful and non-violent caregivers, has characterized feminist studies and critical military studies during the last decades (Duncanson, 2015, 2020; Higate, 2003; Morgan, 1994; Sørensen 2015; Yuval-Davis, 1997; Woodward & Jenkings, 2011). Many feminist scholars have also used the concept of hegemonic masculinities to grasp the dynamic and the contradictions within militarized masculinities. Claire Duncanson, for instance, has argued that the concept has been an important analytical tool for critical scholars in highlighting the multiple, dynamic and contradictory character of masculinities in the military. It has underlined that the ideal of ‘combat-experienced commanding officer is not the only form of masculinity, but it is a very powerful model, which through consent, has dominated as one form of “ideal man”’ (Duncanson, 2020, p. 471). Some scholars have argued that while military studies and feminist research have given much attention to the construction of militarized masculinities within the military system, less scholarly attention has been paid to veteran masculinities in transitions from military to civilian life after deployment. This raises important questions about if, how, or to what extend militarized masculinities can be unmade and deconstructed, and how these processes interfere in family lives and social relations? (Bulmer & Eichler, 2017; Moelker, Andres, Bowen, & Manigart, 2015). War and military are closely connected to nationalist discourses. These are based on the classical distinction between citizen-the-mother and citizen-the soldier and the conceptualizations of men as aggressive and violent, fighting for the sake of women and children, and women as peaceful anti-violent mothers (Encloe, 1980; Pateman, 1988; Yuval-Davis, 1997).